Replace "is" and "are" in your post with "should not be" and you have the user point of view. The frequency of screw-ups, changes, and work interruptions is often higher than with any other kind of productivity interference. Even the copier running out of paper reflects on you because a copier is undifferentiated from a printer. Copiers are tech. You're tech. QED, truth or not. In some examples I gave earlier, tech problems are the most significant workplace issue.
And in reality, their problem should trump all others when they are in your presence. It doesn't mean they will ultimately take priority, but at least they should feel that their requests are treated seriously and promptly, with a reasonably accurate schedule of response. Not like they "have the technical IQ of a carrot". In addition, IT often does the tech equivalent of stonewalling; they provide no information or provide it only in tech-speak.
Keep in mind that you are the 21st century equivalent of a secretary. Your job is piddle in the larger scheme of human endeavor. You do a job that will ultimately be replaced by the technology you now tend. For the moment, end users are your clients. They do not need to respect you, and will not respect you until you earn that respect in your skills and behavior.
Fortunately, I'm mostly self-employed, not in technology (any more), and maintain my own network and software at home.
But I do hear IT hate from colleagues (who remember when I ran a computer company and think I still have a clue)...
One works in a highly time-stressed professional setting where she moves from room to room to deal with clients, using the computer in the room (no laptops). The system responds slowly and the main reporting software (written by the organization's IT people) has an inconsistent interface and commands. Changes to commands are implemented without notice and using the wrong 'old' command causes lost work. She's given up calling IT because technical explanations are irrelevant to her work. Now she hand-writes everything to enter when she can concentrate on what the system expects.
Another works where the previous system's back-end changed from Windows to Linux. The change seemed smooth enough because the employees' machines remained Windows, but previously functioning software -- particularly media software, which he uses in this job -- no longer integrates well or functions at all. He is given technical explanations about network issues, all irrelevant to his work. Material that once got out promptly now lags hours or days until IT comes up fixes as problems arise. Nothing is comprehensively solved.
A third teaches at a college. Each instructor has to log in to the whiteboard computer -- at which point updates begin installing. The system hangs for upwards of a minute when media apps are called up (such as audio/video players, Flash, or PDF readers). He's way into IT hate for losing class time. And yes, he's one who tapes his monthly required password change on the desk. The Moodle system recently installed is so slow that he's stopped using it entirely (the previous system called Blackboard having been abandoned for the same reason!).
What these have in common, I think, is that either IT wasn't interested in knowing or wasn't required to understand how the people actually work in their jobs. Of course, understanding or not, it seems to me you shouldn't be building systems that make people wait in time-sensitive situations, nor should you create complicated and changing interfaces. Ultimately, the organizations should be aware that IT is hindering effectiveness, not enhancing it. In the meantime, there's some seething IT hate!
I didn't delete files. Some materials are converted, some aren't, some are in original media, some are recovered from those media and restored when needed.
My response was to your comment about 10-year-old backups: "Do you even have any idea what is in those 10 year old backup tapes? If it's not on the computer, your company's not making efficient use of the stored info ". Whether archives and backups are different is really not relevant -- the OP was about opening old files, which is a combination hardware/software issue. That extends to backups as well as opening original media, including pre-digital... Read Michael Gerzon's essay "Don't Destroy The Archives" for more on these issues.
What it comes down to is this: There's a simple limit to the time available to up-convert... this afflicts artists, especially composers. The sheer quantity is hard to deal with. I have composed 1000+ pieces (about 1/4 electroacoustic since the 1960s), written nearly 1000 articles, written books, done graphics, and recorded thousands of hours of performances in formats encompassing mono open reel, those old Beta F1 digital tapes, dbx I open reel, 4-track 3.75 cassette, DAT, flashcard... and, of course, photographs on thousands of 35mm negative strips through digital formats (including proprietary raw formats.
These are formidable archives and backups and original media. Didn't mean to get into semantic differences... just that the issue of preserving useful (and even significant) materials can be overwhelming.
I suppose companies have legal resposibilities and have to keep archives.
As for my own work, I have musical score and book/article backups to 1993 and text materials brought forward from cassette tapes dating from 1978, plus paper scores and articles dating from 1963 and tens of thousands of scans of that material and pre-digital artwork and photography, as well as recordings (including source tracks for electronic music) dating from 1969.
Why? I'm an author and composer, and for us, history doesn't stretch back just a year or two -- it stretches back a lifetime. I was very happy to have those ancient electronic sources from 1972 when an ensemble wanted to premiere that composition in Amsterdam in 2003.
First, by its nature of being forward-looking and leading cultural change, much art, music and literature outside the popular realm does not get attention for quite a while -- that means the rewards don't come until there is a sufficient public to pay for it. (My own compositions from the 1970s are finally getting performances.) Items in the popular realm make their money at the beginning; other forms make it much later. Seven years would not recognize this split that began showing up about 100 years ago.
Second, the lifespan when the Constitution instituted copyright was about 35. It's now nearing 80. The 28+28 old copyright law showed how the copyright term based on the Constitution (Article I Section 8) grew with that, and I think it makes sense for the creators.
I support Creative Commons-style licensing and oppose unlimited copyright extensions, and especially the 19th century legalization of corporations as artificial persons. Take that away, and copyright has much less commercial value and would slowly fade as an issue.
Thanks to the above posters on the photo printing comments. At the home printing level, inkjet seems to be the route for good photos. I haven't tried the photo kiosks; if they really do use dye sublimation (and can print 8x10 from TIFF), it might be worthwhile.
Questions: Do laser printers do good photos on photo paper? The ones I've seen have looked garish and nothing like a decent photo, but the inkjets (especially good Epsons) do beautiful photographs, often indistinguishable from 'chemical' photographs. If there are laser printers that can do an equally good job, which are they?
Thanks!
You're correct. I understand the geek nature of the idea, and how any out-of-field implementation looks great. The problem is that music notation is badly understood even by those programming it, and even more badly programmed because programming begets programming -- in other words, just as there are many who think MP3s sound better than full-range high-resolution version, there are many who think amateur music notation looks just fine. They've gotten used to it, and don't actually look at fine metal plate engraving when designing the software. Were the same lack of understanding and poor implementation (even as a demo) brought to an accounting program or photo editor or even a book on Linux, it would be committed to the great hells of derision and disdain.
As a music copyist for 40+ years, I'd say this may be a cool concept but has dreadful results. There have been hundreds of programs that produced amateur results like this since the early 1980s, and most of them couldn't (and still can't) do basic contemporary notation. That's why ABC notation is also pretty useless. If it can come close to doing this with good character balance and incorporation of graphical elements -- most of which Finale could do 15 years ago and Score could do long before that -- then it's a start.
I love new implementations, but as any professional in any field knows, ultimately it's what you implement that matters.
I'm not saying that Discovery in particular wouldn't pay -- the show (called "Deadly Women" in the U.S.) just wasn't caught in the random cable survey, and I can't retrospectively change the ASCAP registration and approach them myself. The show runs in several world markets, four or more times a year, usually around Halloween in the U.S. There was a 15-minute segment with me, part of which included my music.
You're right and I should have been clearer. We used to have to pay membership dues as well as the percentage -- the dues were dropped several years ago. So even if the performances or broadcasts drop below cost, unlike an agent, we don't pay any kind of retainer. But you're correct, they still get (and always got) a percentage of the royalties.
Yes, I have to relinquish trying to get my own royalties. It is, as they say, complicated. I can choose not to register specific pieces with ASCAP, and then try to collect royalties myself. But I can't do it in retrospect, nor can I choose to get live performance royalties but not broadcast royalties and vice-versa, and there's the problem of how to arrange this with the publisher (my own company, in this case, so it would be easier). I emphasize "try to collect" because it's really difficult and rarely successful unless you're an artist with fame or influence or already enough money to sue when you get ignored. Which takes us recursively back to why ASCAP and BMI exist in the first place.
Indeed, with computer technology finally infiltrating broadcasting/cable/web, I'd really love them to end the random surveys and go for 100% reporting.
ASCAP doesn't have much 'muscle', it only has the law on its side.
As for the line, "ASCAP does not automatically pay royalties for general live performances," that is correct. Performances have to be reported even for U.S. composers to receive royalties. Similarly, I have to apply to receive my royalties from Belgium or Portugal or Italy or Australia to be funneled to me through ASCAP. On the same site you referenced, you can find ARPA's actual reporting info for overseas performances.
The application you referenced is for the ASCAP Awards, which provide additional funds for composers receive small levels of royalties. It is available to U.S. composers as well.
AC, you clearly don't know me (or maybe even my previous/. posts on the topic, or my homepage).
ASCAP often gets lumped in with the RIAA (and now Mussolini? why not do a Godwin on it?), and I was trying to provide a little background on ASCAP's "good side," which has helped me stay afloat as an artist in ways I couldn't do before in our relatively arts-hostile society and economy. ASCAP hardly does everything right, but they are an organization with a relatively small budget (last year's $115 million working budget doesn't finance one medium-size Hollywood movie these days) and a history that stretches back to vaudeville and acoustic shellacs. They can be very slow to change -- especially as changes must go through the 1941 consent decree (somebody correct me if this has changed).
No, I don't get the compensation I deserve because U.S. society doesn't put the same value on the creation of nonpop art/music as do other Western societies. There's no equipment tax that goes to composers, no large publicly supported agency that builds concert halls or provides public salaries to artists. But of the license fee "loaves" charged to venues and broadcasters, ASCAP lets me keep about 11 of my dozen loaves earned rather than your characterization of one in 12 (ever check out how much an agent charges?). They also give songwriting and film composition workshops, legal seminars, and dozens of other regional programs in support of artists' work. They had committees drawn from composer members dicussing Internet music options before there were MP3s to play. Their concert division head Fran Richard is absolutely fierce when it comes to defending composers.
You clearly want me to tell you why ASCAP is screwed up or at least how they could improve. Oh, yeah, they certainly could. They could get their head out of the protectionist sand and be less confrontational about stupid little issues. They could move faster to encourage venues and broadcast/cable outlets to modernize their reporting (and make it more accurate) so the random surveying could be dumped. They're finally getting their online licensing in some sort of decent shape, reducing the paperwork all around. Heck, I'd like to see them raise the licensing fees!
On the other hand, what seem like small issues (arcades, ringtones, bars, Girl Scouts...) are actually a process of defining what constitutes a public performance. The issue of piano rolls was once very important, and licensing those led to jukeboxes, radio, etc. So now virtual-world performances come into play, too. All of these stupid-sounding behaviors are defenses of the artists' rights put into motion -- and yes, some are really stupid. But ultimately ASCAP and BMI are not working for corporate interests (as the RIAA is) but rather artists' interests. That's why we join (and go through a process of evaluation to be accepted).
So, AC, am I an artist? I've always supposed so, and worked hard as an arts advocate. I've fought against copyright extension, against the WIPO regulations, against tethered software, against hardware locks and DRM (even being one of the originators of "key escrow"). As an composer, I've written nearly 1,000 pieces. But you can find all that on my website.
The aggregate figures are published in their annual report. The "composers, authors and publishers" in ASCAP's name receive about 88.5% of what they collect. There have been years we've both made money and others in which 11.5% of my royalties wouldn't buy a decent weekend near their offices on New York's Lincoln Plaza.
Okay, without getting too personal (this is Slashdot, after all), I'll say that I'm both a composer and a publisher member of ASCAP (my one-person company publishes the works of four composers). It is all tied together so that without ASCAP, there is no network of resources to provide income (I'm not an academic). Those royalties, my paper score and recording sales, an annual award, commissions for new compositions, music engraving (computer typesetting) and recording/restoration make up my income. Some years performances are good, but last year performances (mine and the other three composers) were few because the economy kicked our butts, and I know already royalties this quarter won't be the majority of my income.
No. There is ASCAP as well as BMI and SESAC, and as Artemis mentioned below, CCLI. There are also specialty licensing agencies here, and international agencies (which U.S. artists can be members of) like GEMA, BUMA, etc., etc.
Artists can set the rates. There is no requirement to join a licensing agency. The point of the agency is to act as a nationwide intermediary/clearinghouse for the individual artist and publisher, alleviating them of the process of chasing down performances after the fact, negotiating each pre-performance contract, etc.
By the way, individual negotiation is still done for so called "grand rights". Look that one up!
The broadcast distribution was (is) a bookkeeping nightmare. I expect a change in the random survey as more logs are computerized, but I appreciate the scope of the problem, and recognize that ASCAP has been improving their technological toolset.
Unlike the rest of the world where each piece is counted because of the relatively small number of broadcast outlets, consider that there are roughly 16,000 radio stations, 2,000 television stations, and 4,000 low-power stations in the U.S. generating 400,000+ hours of programming or some four million plays per day -- including songs, jingles, background music, etc. There is a massive amount of bookkeeping to acquire the composer and publisher information and appropriately divide and distribute the resulting pennies. You can imagine that doing this by hand, as has been the case for 85 years, would have made song-by-song crediting impossible.
Also, note that ASCAP operated for most of its existence under a 1941 consent decree, and the court must approve any changes in collection and distribution systems.
I know there's a developing standard number for recordings, but don't know if that also includes the title codes for the music.
Considering the complexities of finding not only broadcast and cable performances but also live performances, last year ASCAP collected $930+ million in licensing fees and turned over $815+ million of that in royalties. That's a pretty low $115 million (11%) operating-expense ratio for an organization that needs enormous hands-on work and representatives in every state. Composers send in printed programs, lists of performances, etc., which are resolved for duplications, titles hunted down and matched. Tons of manual labor.
Frankly, I would love it if it were possible to get to that automated crediting before I die. That unsurveyed Discovery Channel music alone is worth a good chunk, along with thousands of plays I've had worldwide.
Artists are 'worth the effort' if their art is worthwhile. This is always a conundrum, as 'popular' and 'worthwhile' aren't the same thing, and certain don't always match the traditional economic model. ASCAP recognizes this disparity of value with special award funds provided annually to low-royalty, highly skilled artists (as record labels used to support their classical divisions). If art isn't your social priority, it isn't worth it to you, and you won't get this significance.
But that's not the point I was making at all -- rather, that as artists grow in interest and gain performances, that investment is beneficial both economically and to society, and licensing agencies handle that paperwork and lower the stress level for both artists and venues (who would be negotiating song-by-song for live gigs rather than paying a blanket licenses).
The NEA also tries to recognize this disparity between 'popular' and 'worthwhile' with their motto, "A great nation deserves great art." Unfortunately, they didn't quite get it right. A great nation MAKES great art. That's what we do as artists, and our agents help us live by our work.
Pretty good thoughts, thanks. (And nice you mention the farmers' market analogy -- our daughter runs a CSA called Tangletown Farm and depends on farmers' markets.)
I'm an ASCAP member, and have been for 20 years. Unlike bands, I'm a composer. I don't do gigs; I write the stuff that's played at gigs. Even more unmatched to the usual/. complaint, my music isn't pop, and it comes off a sheet of paper or computer screen to performers.
Although my distributor sells some paper scores and parts, I allow download of all my scores and parts for musicians who want to print them by themselves. So that means I live almost entirely on the royalties from licensed performances -- and it isn't much, I'll tell you, because schools are exempted if it's part of the educational program, religious institutions are always exempted, and there is a host of other exemptions, such as ringtones and other nonprofit uses and even work-for-hire where rights are given up. Do I get a mountain royalties if my piece is played on the radio or cable or broadcast television? Nope -- unless my piece is caught in the random surveys used to determine royalty amounts; despite hundreds of broadcast performances in 20 years (including a repeated feature on the Discovery Channel), no piece of mine has every had the good fortune to be surveyed. Yes, I get royalties from outside the U.S., such as my $2.95 from Taiwan last month. Stunning. I'll be driving to a performance of a big orchestral work in January, a six-hour round-trip. My royalty for that performance will be about $100.
ASCAP collects these royalties for me, and I don't pay for that privilege. They do the work, take a very small percentage, and I get the occasional check. They lose money on me and probably the majority of their composers. Are they crazy sometimes? Sure, like when they wanted royalties from the Girl Scouts for singing "Happy Birthday". But that crazy is also a reminder that there are performance rights granted in law and managed for many composers by their membership in groups like ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and their international counterparts.
Could I do it myself? Sure, if I wanted to locate performances in Finland or Portugal or Belgium or Tulsa or Grand Rapids, and send a bill. But I am happy that ASCAP does that for me and I can keep working as an artist.
Most composers are in this position. You don't know their work as a big stage act, but you hear it in concert halls or small venues or as part of documentary films/videos or on public radio.
That's where those licensing fees come from, and they go through licensing representatives who work for us individual composers.
I agree that mobile service is better in Europe in general. I like buying a SIM card at the tobacco shop and popping it into the phone and just having it work. But a couple of things...
For any nationwide company, there are at least 51 governments to deal with in the US -- federal and 50 states, including different service and environmental requirements. Sometimes, as in New England, a collection of state governments must agree to make service or company changes in order to provide any service at all to this generally rural area. The US is often way less legally harmonious than the EU.
Don't forget the continental US is 15 times the size of Sweden (which is about the size of California). It's a large area to cover and requires enormous infrastructure, with rural service paid for by the profitable areas (where competition is strong) and required by many state governments -- otherwise there would be no service outside metropolitan areas. Where I live, coverage is spotty. Only one company (AT&T) actually reaches my house, and the major telecom provider here is going bankrupt.
Finally, new mobile infrastructure (such as Somalia) simply has no competition from wired legacy services, which still dominate in the US. I suppose if we suffered a catastrophic generation-long war, we could finally build good services from scratch. Just think of modern European train infrastructure (50 years old) compared to antiquated US train infrastructure (150 years old). Even if the US were not a 'car culture', keeping a vast continent served would be tough -- Tehran is closer to Stockholm than Los Angeles is to Boston, after all.
deseipel: most people think of the performers as the writers/composers
Then they'd be wrong, which is why this discussion always gets so confused. Publishers don't perform, and there are tens of thousands of composers who compose music and writers who write lyrics -- but who never perform their own material. I'm one of them, and an ASCAP member (but please don't ask me to defend their stupid behaviors, like the ringtone follies going on now). That's our only source of musical income. Those little names under the song titles -- that's us. We get paid (by random 'lottery' here in the US) and the trickle of pennies is a valuable one. On the other hand, I do think the payment scale is way skewed, and nonprofits or volunteer programs shouldn't be hustled for ASCAP/BMI/SESAC royalties or RIAA performance fees.
Slashdot Mirror
Replace "is" and "are" in your post with "should not be" and you have the user point of view. The frequency of screw-ups, changes, and work interruptions is often higher than with any other kind of productivity interference. Even the copier running out of paper reflects on you because a copier is undifferentiated from a printer. Copiers are tech. You're tech. QED, truth or not. In some examples I gave earlier, tech problems are the most significant workplace issue.
And in reality, their problem should trump all others when they are in your presence. It doesn't mean they will ultimately take priority, but at least they should feel that their requests are treated seriously and promptly, with a reasonably accurate schedule of response. Not like they "have the technical IQ of a carrot". In addition, IT often does the tech equivalent of stonewalling; they provide no information or provide it only in tech-speak.
Keep in mind that you are the 21st century equivalent of a secretary. Your job is piddle in the larger scheme of human endeavor. You do a job that will ultimately be replaced by the technology you now tend. For the moment, end users are your clients. They do not need to respect you, and will not respect you until you earn that respect in your skills and behavior.
Fortunately, I'm mostly self-employed, not in technology (any more), and maintain my own network and software at home.
But I do hear IT hate from colleagues (who remember when I ran a computer company and think I still have a clue)...
One works in a highly time-stressed professional setting where she moves from room to room to deal with clients, using the computer in the room (no laptops). The system responds slowly and the main reporting software (written by the organization's IT people) has an inconsistent interface and commands. Changes to commands are implemented without notice and using the wrong 'old' command causes lost work. She's given up calling IT because technical explanations are irrelevant to her work. Now she hand-writes everything to enter when she can concentrate on what the system expects.
Another works where the previous system's back-end changed from Windows to Linux. The change seemed smooth enough because the employees' machines remained Windows, but previously functioning software -- particularly media software, which he uses in this job -- no longer integrates well or functions at all. He is given technical explanations about network issues, all irrelevant to his work. Material that once got out promptly now lags hours or days until IT comes up fixes as problems arise. Nothing is comprehensively solved.
A third teaches at a college. Each instructor has to log in to the whiteboard computer -- at which point updates begin installing. The system hangs for upwards of a minute when media apps are called up (such as audio/video players, Flash, or PDF readers). He's way into IT hate for losing class time. And yes, he's one who tapes his monthly required password change on the desk. The Moodle system recently installed is so slow that he's stopped using it entirely (the previous system called Blackboard having been abandoned for the same reason!).
What these have in common, I think, is that either IT wasn't interested in knowing or wasn't required to understand how the people actually work in their jobs. Of course, understanding or not, it seems to me you shouldn't be building systems that make people wait in time-sensitive situations, nor should you create complicated and changing interfaces. Ultimately, the organizations should be aware that IT is hindering effectiveness, not enhancing it. In the meantime, there's some seething IT hate!
You can recover those degraded tapes. Contact me privately for info/help on this.
Dennis
I didn't delete files. Some materials are converted, some aren't, some are in original media, some are recovered from those media and restored when needed.
My response was to your comment about 10-year-old backups: "Do you even have any idea what is in those 10 year old backup tapes? If it's not on the computer, your company's not making efficient use of the stored info ". Whether archives and backups are different is really not relevant -- the OP was about opening old files, which is a combination hardware/software issue. That extends to backups as well as opening original media, including pre-digital ... Read Michael Gerzon's essay "Don't Destroy The Archives" for more on these issues.
What it comes down to is this: There's a simple limit to the time available to up-convert ... this afflicts artists, especially composers. The sheer quantity is hard to deal with. I have composed 1000+ pieces (about 1/4 electroacoustic since the 1960s), written nearly 1000 articles, written books, done graphics, and recorded thousands of hours of performances in formats encompassing mono open reel, those old Beta F1 digital tapes, dbx I open reel, 4-track 3.75 cassette, DAT, flashcard... and, of course, photographs on thousands of 35mm negative strips through digital formats (including proprietary raw formats.
These are formidable archives and backups and original media. Didn't mean to get into semantic differences ... just that the issue of preserving useful (and even significant) materials can be overwhelming.
Dennis
http://bathory.org/
I suppose companies have legal resposibilities and have to keep archives.
As for my own work, I have musical score and book/article backups to 1993 and text materials brought forward from cassette tapes dating from 1978, plus paper scores and articles dating from 1963 and tens of thousands of scans of that material and pre-digital artwork and photography, as well as recordings (including source tracks for electronic music) dating from 1969.
Why? I'm an author and composer, and for us, history doesn't stretch back just a year or two -- it stretches back a lifetime. I was very happy to have those ancient electronic sources from 1972 when an ensemble wanted to premiere that composition in Amsterdam in 2003.
Dennis
http://bathory.org/
A couple of points.
First, by its nature of being forward-looking and leading cultural change, much art, music and literature outside the popular realm does not get attention for quite a while -- that means the rewards don't come until there is a sufficient public to pay for it. (My own compositions from the 1970s are finally getting performances.) Items in the popular realm make their money at the beginning; other forms make it much later. Seven years would not recognize this split that began showing up about 100 years ago.
Second, the lifespan when the Constitution instituted copyright was about 35. It's now nearing 80. The 28+28 old copyright law showed how the copyright term based on the Constitution (Article I Section 8) grew with that, and I think it makes sense for the creators.
I support Creative Commons-style licensing and oppose unlimited copyright extensions, and especially the 19th century legalization of corporations as artificial persons. Take that away, and copyright has much less commercial value and would slowly fade as an issue.
Dennis
Please support my Blood Countess opera. Do it now unless you want me to depend a whole lot on copyright!
Thanks to the above posters on the photo printing comments. At the home printing level, inkjet seems to be the route for good photos. I haven't tried the photo kiosks; if they really do use dye sublimation (and can print 8x10 from TIFF), it might be worthwhile.
Questions: Do laser printers do good photos on photo paper? The ones I've seen have looked garish and nothing like a decent photo, but the inkjets (especially good Epsons) do beautiful photographs, often indistinguishable from 'chemical' photographs. If there are laser printers that can do an equally good job, which are they? Thanks!
You're correct. I understand the geek nature of the idea, and how any out-of-field implementation looks great. The problem is that music notation is badly understood even by those programming it, and even more badly programmed because programming begets programming -- in other words, just as there are many who think MP3s sound better than full-range high-resolution version, there are many who think amateur music notation looks just fine. They've gotten used to it, and don't actually look at fine metal plate engraving when designing the software. Were the same lack of understanding and poor implementation (even as a demo) brought to an accounting program or photo editor or even a book on Linux, it would be committed to the great hells of derision and disdain.
Dennis
Pleae back my opera on Kickstarter
That's been going around for many years -- and it HAS been done. I don't have the link, but somebody took it on and did it in Finale.
As a music copyist for 40+ years, I'd say this may be a cool concept but has dreadful results. There have been hundreds of programs that produced amateur results like this since the early 1980s, and most of them couldn't (and still can't) do basic contemporary notation. That's why ABC notation is also pretty useless. If it can come close to doing this with good character balance and incorporation of graphical elements -- most of which Finale could do 15 years ago and Score could do long before that -- then it's a start.
I love new implementations, but as any professional in any field knows, ultimately it's what you implement that matters.
Dennis
Please back my project! at Kickstarter.
They have "Avant-Garde Electroacoustic Chamber Music Music Hero" out yet? That'd be me. :)
Dennis
I'm not saying that Discovery in particular wouldn't pay -- the show (called "Deadly Women" in the U.S.) just wasn't caught in the random cable survey, and I can't retrospectively change the ASCAP registration and approach them myself. The show runs in several world markets, four or more times a year, usually around Halloween in the U.S. There was a 15-minute segment with me, part of which included my music.
Dennis
You're right and I should have been clearer. We used to have to pay membership dues as well as the percentage -- the dues were dropped several years ago. So even if the performances or broadcasts drop below cost, unlike an agent, we don't pay any kind of retainer. But you're correct, they still get (and always got) a percentage of the royalties.
Yes, I have to relinquish trying to get my own royalties. It is, as they say, complicated. I can choose not to register specific pieces with ASCAP, and then try to collect royalties myself. But I can't do it in retrospect, nor can I choose to get live performance royalties but not broadcast royalties and vice-versa, and there's the problem of how to arrange this with the publisher (my own company, in this case, so it would be easier). I emphasize "try to collect" because it's really difficult and rarely successful unless you're an artist with fame or influence or already enough money to sue when you get ignored. Which takes us recursively back to why ASCAP and BMI exist in the first place.
Indeed, with computer technology finally infiltrating broadcasting/cable/web, I'd really love them to end the random surveys and go for 100% reporting.
Dennis
ASCAP doesn't have much 'muscle', it only has the law on its side.
As for the line, "ASCAP does not automatically pay royalties for general live performances," that is correct. Performances have to be reported even for U.S. composers to receive royalties. Similarly, I have to apply to receive my royalties from Belgium or Portugal or Italy or Australia to be funneled to me through ASCAP. On the same site you referenced, you can find ARPA's actual reporting info for overseas performances.
The application you referenced is for the ASCAP Awards, which provide additional funds for composers receive small levels of royalties. It is available to U.S. composers as well.
Dennis
AC, you clearly don't know me (or maybe even my previous /. posts on the topic, or my homepage).
ASCAP often gets lumped in with the RIAA (and now Mussolini? why not do a Godwin on it?), and I was trying to provide a little background on ASCAP's "good side," which has helped me stay afloat as an artist in ways I couldn't do before in our relatively arts-hostile society and economy. ASCAP hardly does everything right, but they are an organization with a relatively small budget (last year's $115 million working budget doesn't finance one medium-size Hollywood movie these days) and a history that stretches back to vaudeville and acoustic shellacs. They can be very slow to change -- especially as changes must go through the 1941 consent decree (somebody correct me if this has changed).
No, I don't get the compensation I deserve because U.S. society doesn't put the same value on the creation of nonpop art/music as do other Western societies. There's no equipment tax that goes to composers, no large publicly supported agency that builds concert halls or provides public salaries to artists. But of the license fee "loaves" charged to venues and broadcasters, ASCAP lets me keep about 11 of my dozen loaves earned rather than your characterization of one in 12 (ever check out how much an agent charges?). They also give songwriting and film composition workshops, legal seminars, and dozens of other regional programs in support of artists' work. They had committees drawn from composer members dicussing Internet music options before there were MP3s to play. Their concert division head Fran Richard is absolutely fierce when it comes to defending composers.
You clearly want me to tell you why ASCAP is screwed up or at least how they could improve. Oh, yeah, they certainly could. They could get their head out of the protectionist sand and be less confrontational about stupid little issues. They could move faster to encourage venues and broadcast/cable outlets to modernize their reporting (and make it more accurate) so the random surveying could be dumped. They're finally getting their online licensing in some sort of decent shape, reducing the paperwork all around. Heck, I'd like to see them raise the licensing fees!
On the other hand, what seem like small issues (arcades, ringtones, bars, Girl Scouts...) are actually a process of defining what constitutes a public performance. The issue of piano rolls was once very important, and licensing those led to jukeboxes, radio, etc. So now virtual-world performances come into play, too. All of these stupid-sounding behaviors are defenses of the artists' rights put into motion -- and yes, some are really stupid. But ultimately ASCAP and BMI are not working for corporate interests (as the RIAA is) but rather artists' interests. That's why we join (and go through a process of evaluation to be accepted).
So, AC, am I an artist? I've always supposed so, and worked hard as an arts advocate. I've fought against copyright extension, against the WIPO regulations, against tethered software, against hardware locks and DRM (even being one of the originators of "key escrow"). As an composer, I've written nearly 1,000 pieces. But you can find all that on my website.
Dennis
The aggregate figures are published in their annual report. The "composers, authors and publishers" in ASCAP's name receive about 88.5% of what they collect. There have been years we've both made money and others in which 11.5% of my royalties wouldn't buy a decent weekend near their offices on New York's Lincoln Plaza.
Dennis
Okay, without getting too personal (this is Slashdot, after all), I'll say that I'm both a composer and a publisher member of ASCAP (my one-person company publishes the works of four composers). It is all tied together so that without ASCAP, there is no network of resources to provide income (I'm not an academic). Those royalties, my paper score and recording sales, an annual award, commissions for new compositions, music engraving (computer typesetting) and recording/restoration make up my income. Some years performances are good, but last year performances (mine and the other three composers) were few because the economy kicked our butts, and I know already royalties this quarter won't be the majority of my income.
The IRS considers my income from composition.
Dennis
No. There is ASCAP as well as BMI and SESAC, and as Artemis mentioned below, CCLI. There are also specialty licensing agencies here, and international agencies (which U.S. artists can be members of) like GEMA, BUMA, etc., etc.
Dennis
Artists can set the rates. There is no requirement to join a licensing agency. The point of the agency is to act as a nationwide intermediary/clearinghouse for the individual artist and publisher, alleviating them of the process of chasing down performances after the fact, negotiating each pre-performance contract, etc.
By the way, individual negotiation is still done for so called "grand rights". Look that one up!
Dennis
The broadcast distribution was (is) a bookkeeping nightmare. I expect a change in the random survey as more logs are computerized, but I appreciate the scope of the problem, and recognize that ASCAP has been improving their technological toolset.
Unlike the rest of the world where each piece is counted because of the relatively small number of broadcast outlets, consider that there are roughly 16,000 radio stations, 2,000 television stations, and 4,000 low-power stations in the U.S. generating 400,000+ hours of programming or some four million plays per day -- including songs, jingles, background music, etc. There is a massive amount of bookkeeping to acquire the composer and publisher information and appropriately divide and distribute the resulting pennies. You can imagine that doing this by hand, as has been the case for 85 years, would have made song-by-song crediting impossible.
Also, note that ASCAP operated for most of its existence under a 1941 consent decree, and the court must approve any changes in collection and distribution systems.
I know there's a developing standard number for recordings, but don't know if that also includes the title codes for the music.
Considering the complexities of finding not only broadcast and cable performances but also live performances, last year ASCAP collected $930+ million in licensing fees and turned over $815+ million of that in royalties. That's a pretty low $115 million (11%) operating-expense ratio for an organization that needs enormous hands-on work and representatives in every state. Composers send in printed programs, lists of performances, etc., which are resolved for duplications, titles hunted down and matched. Tons of manual labor.
Frankly, I would love it if it were possible to get to that automated crediting before I die. That unsurveyed Discovery Channel music alone is worth a good chunk, along with thousands of plays I've had worldwide.
Dennis
Artists are 'worth the effort' if their art is worthwhile. This is always a conundrum, as 'popular' and 'worthwhile' aren't the same thing, and certain don't always match the traditional economic model. ASCAP recognizes this disparity of value with special award funds provided annually to low-royalty, highly skilled artists (as record labels used to support their classical divisions). If art isn't your social priority, it isn't worth it to you, and you won't get this significance.
But that's not the point I was making at all -- rather, that as artists grow in interest and gain performances, that investment is beneficial both economically and to society, and licensing agencies handle that paperwork and lower the stress level for both artists and venues (who would be negotiating song-by-song for live gigs rather than paying a blanket licenses).
The NEA also tries to recognize this disparity between 'popular' and 'worthwhile' with their motto, "A great nation deserves great art." Unfortunately, they didn't quite get it right. A great nation MAKES great art. That's what we do as artists, and our agents help us live by our work.
Dennis
Pretty good thoughts, thanks. (And nice you mention the farmers' market analogy -- our daughter runs a CSA called Tangletown Farm and depends on farmers' markets.)
I'm an ASCAP member, and have been for 20 years. Unlike bands, I'm a composer. I don't do gigs; I write the stuff that's played at gigs. Even more unmatched to the usual /. complaint, my music isn't pop, and it comes off a sheet of paper or computer screen to performers.
Although my distributor sells some paper scores and parts, I allow download of all my scores and parts for musicians who want to print them by themselves. So that means I live almost entirely on the royalties from licensed performances -- and it isn't much, I'll tell you, because schools are exempted if it's part of the educational program, religious institutions are always exempted, and there is a host of other exemptions, such as ringtones and other nonprofit uses and even work-for-hire where rights are given up. Do I get a mountain royalties if my piece is played on the radio or cable or broadcast television? Nope -- unless my piece is caught in the random surveys used to determine royalty amounts; despite hundreds of broadcast performances in 20 years (including a repeated feature on the Discovery Channel), no piece of mine has every had the good fortune to be surveyed. Yes, I get royalties from outside the U.S., such as my $2.95 from Taiwan last month. Stunning. I'll be driving to a performance of a big orchestral work in January, a six-hour round-trip. My royalty for that performance will be about $100.
ASCAP collects these royalties for me, and I don't pay for that privilege. They do the work, take a very small percentage, and I get the occasional check. They lose money on me and probably the majority of their composers. Are they crazy sometimes? Sure, like when they wanted royalties from the Girl Scouts for singing "Happy Birthday". But that crazy is also a reminder that there are performance rights granted in law and managed for many composers by their membership in groups like ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and their international counterparts.
Could I do it myself? Sure, if I wanted to locate performances in Finland or Portugal or Belgium or Tulsa or Grand Rapids, and send a bill. But I am happy that ASCAP does that for me and I can keep working as an artist.
Most composers are in this position. You don't know their work as a big stage act, but you hear it in concert halls or small venues or as part of documentary films/videos or on public radio.
That's where those licensing fees come from, and they go through licensing representatives who work for us individual composers.
Dennis
I agree that mobile service is better in Europe in general. I like buying a SIM card at the tobacco shop and popping it into the phone and just having it work. But a couple of things...
For any nationwide company, there are at least 51 governments to deal with in the US -- federal and 50 states, including different service and environmental requirements. Sometimes, as in New England, a collection of state governments must agree to make service or company changes in order to provide any service at all to this generally rural area. The US is often way less legally harmonious than the EU.
Don't forget the continental US is 15 times the size of Sweden (which is about the size of California). It's a large area to cover and requires enormous infrastructure, with rural service paid for by the profitable areas (where competition is strong) and required by many state governments -- otherwise there would be no service outside metropolitan areas. Where I live, coverage is spotty. Only one company (AT&T) actually reaches my house, and the major telecom provider here is going bankrupt.
Finally, new mobile infrastructure (such as Somalia) simply has no competition from wired legacy services, which still dominate in the US. I suppose if we suffered a catastrophic generation-long war, we could finally build good services from scratch. Just think of modern European train infrastructure (50 years old) compared to antiquated US train infrastructure (150 years old). Even if the US were not a 'car culture', keeping a vast continent served would be tough -- Tehran is closer to Stockholm than Los Angeles is to Boston, after all.
Dennis
deseipel: most people think of the performers as the writers/composers
Then they'd be wrong, which is why this discussion always gets so confused. Publishers don't perform, and there are tens of thousands of composers who compose music and writers who write lyrics -- but who never perform their own material. I'm one of them, and an ASCAP member (but please don't ask me to defend their stupid behaviors, like the ringtone follies going on now). That's our only source of musical income. Those little names under the song titles -- that's us. We get paid (by random 'lottery' here in the US) and the trickle of pennies is a valuable one. On the other hand, I do think the payment scale is way skewed, and nonprofits or volunteer programs shouldn't be hustled for ASCAP/BMI/SESAC royalties or RIAA performance fees.
Dennis